If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The universe doesn't have a center. It having a center would imply it has edges, which it obviously doesn't. You're thinking of the universe like it's a box or something. The universe is finite in space (& expanding), but it is unbounded. Which means that you could travel in one direction infinitely and never reach an "end". At the same time though there is a finite amount of space in the universe (& again it's expanding).

Sure you do. You've set it up, we'll talk about laws of logic I guess. What are the laws of logic, and how do you explain them in a purely natural universe?

Atomic structures of vastly different elements are separated by minute yet quantifiable and consecutive numbers of protons, neutrons and electrons. And if your argument here is that we discovered this using the scientific method, a derivative of the Christian worldview (an assertion which I disagree with and consider somewhat offensive), my retort to you is it doesn't MATTER how we discovered it, because it's true and would be whether we knew it or not, whether there was a God or not.

Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf

Ok, I am back. There are certain truths that must be assumed to be true prior to obtaining any knowledge. Everyone assumes these things are true, and yet only the Christian worldview can consistently provide a framework that can make sense of these assumptions. I will give you an example, we assume that there is an underlying uniformity found in nature, more specifically that future events will resemble past events under identical conditions. This uniformity makes it possible for us to use logical induction which science is based off of. If this uniformity was not assumed to be true, gaining knowledge through observation would be impossible; and yet, this uniformity only makes sense in a Christian worldview. The Christian can assume that the laws of nature we observe today will continue into the future because God has revealed to us that he governs His creation in a predictable and uniform manner (Gen 8). In an atheistic universe there is no reason whatsoever to assume this uniformity exists, so the atheist is actually borrowing capital from the Christian worldview whenever he conducts scientific inquiry or uses logical induction. This is just one example, there are over a half a dozen different presuppositions that must be made before we can know anything at all, and not a single one of them is cogent within an atheistic worldview. So we can conclude that if we lived in an atheistic universe we couldn’t know anything at all, much less that we lived in any such universe. So when an atheist appeals to his knowledge when arguing against the Christian God, he is refuting his own position.

A) This is circular logic, to the point that any valid refuting of it can be evidence of the point's incorrectness. At least do us the courtesy of calling it what it is - ignoring oppositional opinions. B) So what was the worldview that held together people's sanity before 0 AD/BCE then? Hundreds of peoples all of the world (Africa, Asia, North America) led lives well into the second millennium AD/BCE sans Christianity with the expectation of "future events resembling past events." Heck, are you arguing Greeks from before the time of Jesus did not have this? We had philosophers using logic, applying the scientific method and making scientific assertions about the nature of the world long before Christianity came along. Aristotle. Socrates. Plato. And what about scientists over the centuries who have been persecuted by the Church for their discoveries? Galileo? What you argue is that even when the Church is wrong, it's right - since the methodology with which the oppositional view has been composed is derived from it. (A view which is wholly uninformed, and incorrect.)

This expectation of "future events resembling past events" that you talk about - I assume you mean the kind of regularity of schedule with which we lead our everyday lives. So explain to me - what separates this psychological process from that of, say, a dog's? Do you have a dog? Ever known someone with a dog? Dogs thrive on regularity of schedule. And they make basal assumptions about the world according to their experience, just like us. They constantly expect future events (well, let's say present events for this example) to resemble past events. "Master fed me yesterday, he'll feed me today." "Master was here yesterday, he'll be here today." Now if Master goes away, "WHERE THE **** IS MASTER??" My dog flips a **** when I'm not around. Because he expects me to be. He expects present events to resemble past events. We go for a walk every day. He expects to go for a walk every day. To the point where when I get home, he walks over and paws at the table where the leash is.

So please tell me, is my dog leading a life based in the Christian worldview?

And now that you've got me thinking about it, if we've learned ANYthing as a mildly secular society - one in which progress is driven by the creative and scientific-minded (think: Curiosity landing on Mars) - it's that future events DO NOT resemble past events. Maybe that holds true in how we approach our everyday lives, sure, but we are constantly evaluating the world based on the changes that are occurring to make it a different place. I think I can speak for most Americans when I say that the horrific events of 9/11 changed our worldview, and somewhat forced us to admit that we do not know what the future holds. All of this - both your view of regularity and my point here - are based on logic derived from experience. We're not talking about faith here, we're talking about human psychology.

There are no "laws of logic". Logic is defined as "Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity."

What??? No laws of logic? The very act of stating there are no laws of logic assumes that there are laws of logic since it relies on the law of non-contradiction and the law of identity. So we know there are laws of logic, so now you can answer my question, how do you explain their existence in a purely atheistic universe?

Originally Posted by rob19

It having a center would imply it has edges, which it obviously doesn't. You're thinking of the universe like it's a box or something. The universe is finite in space (& expanding), but it is unbounded.

Wow, you sure do like youtube don’t you? I just found it funny you jumped on him for using language that implied the universe had edges but then you use the term “expanding” which implies the universe has a boundary as well. Pretty classic.

Nope, because of the impossibility of the contrary, namely that whenever atheists such as you are challenged to account for any of the preconditions of intelligibility in a manner that is consistent with their atheism they fail. Pretty simple really.

Originally Posted by overworkedirish

Atomic structures of vastly different elements are separated by minute yet quantifiable and consecutive numbers of protons, neutrons and electrons. And if your argument here is that we discovered this using the scientific method, a derivative of the Christian worldview (an assertion which I disagree with and consider somewhat offensive), my retort to you is it doesn't MATTER how we discovered it, because it's true and would be whether we knew it or not, whether there was a God or not.

What on Earth are you talking about? The scientific method relies upon inductive reasoning; inductive reasoning only works if the laws of nature that we will observe in the future will resemble the laws of nature we observed in the past under identical conditions. Of course there is no way to justify this assumption without the God of the Bible. So your beloved scientific method even presupposes the existence of God, you disagreeing with that reality or even finding it offensive doesn’t change the fact that it is true.

A) This is circular logic, to the point that any valid refuting of it can be evidence of the point's incorrectness. At least do us the courtesy of calling it what it is - ignoring oppositional opinions.

You asserting something is “circular logic” does not make it so, my conclusion is not a restatement of either one of my premises, so it is certainly not circular at all.

B) So what was the worldview that held together people's sanity before 0 AD/BCE then? Hundreds of peoples all of the world (Africa, Asia, North America) led lives well into the second millennium AD/BCE sans Christianity with the expectation of "future events resembling past events." Heck, are you arguing Greeks from before the time of Jesus did not have this?

What does the birth of Christ have to do with anything? I clearly stated that God made His promise to uphold His creation in a predictable manner in Genesis which predates Christ by thousands of years. Your argument is a complete non-sequitur, it would be like saying, “I don’t even believe in air and yet I live every day.” A person believing in God or not doesn’t change the fact that He is the sole reason we are able to use induction and assume uniformity in nature. The challenge to you is to find an alternative explanation for the uniformity in nature that we assume exists; there is none in a purely natural universe.

And what about scientists over the centuries who have been persecuted by the Church for their discoveries? Galileo?

Irrelevant to my argument.

What you argue is that even when the Church is wrong, it's right - since the methodology with which the oppositional view has been composed is derived from it. (A view which is wholly uninformed, and incorrect.)

Who said anything about “the Church”? My point was that the non-believer must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to argue against it. In other words, he refutes his own position because he builds his argument against God using assumptions that could not possibly be true if his argument were correct. The Christian is the only one whose assumptions are completely consistent and logically cogent, therefore it must be true. You disagreeing with this fact doesn’t change anything.

So please tell me, is my dog leading a life based in the Christian worldview?

Your dog is able to use induction (even though I don’t really agree with you that dogs are quite this advanced, most dogs do not realize objects continue to exist while they are not being observed) because he or she lives in a universe governed by God. Your dog not knowing this doesn’t all the sudden change the universe to a purely natural one. The point is that you cannot justify your assumption that when you do something under identical conditions you will receive identical results every time you do it unless these events are being governed by the creator God, and yet you live your life as if you can justify such assumptions. That’s the point, atheists are fatally inconsistent when it comes to their views of reality.

Originally Posted by overworkedirish

And now that you've got me thinking about it, if we've learned ANYthing as a mildly secular society - one in which progress is driven by the creative and scientific-minded (think: Curiosity landing on Mars) - it's that future events DO NOT resemble past events. Maybe that holds true in how we approach our everyday lives, sure, but we are constantly evaluating the world based on the changes that are occurring to make it a different place. I think I can speak for most Americans when I say that the horrific events of 9/11 changed our worldview, and somewhat forced us to admit that we do not know what the future holds. All of this - both your view of regularity and my point here - are based on logic derived from experience. We're not talking about faith here, we're talking about human psychology.

You’re equivocating on the term “event” a bit; I am talking about natural law here, not historical events. If you woke up tomorrow morning and your car was missing you would not simply say, “Well I guess my car popped out of existence last night because there really is no uniformity in nature.” Rather, you would assume someone took your car because you assume this uniformity exists, so when we have observed in the past that cars don’t pop out of existence overnight and we know we live in a universe governed by God we can use this to make an inductive argument that your car was probably stolen.

You cannot say that we hold this assumption merely based upon past experience, since this would be an inductive argument. So you’d essentially be trying to use solely an inductive argument to justify your use of induction. I am sure you can see why that’s a “big no no”. Pleasure talking with you

Total DepravityUnconditional ElectionLimited AtonementIrresistible GracePerseverance of the Saints

Wow, you sure do like youtube don’t you? I just found it funny you jumped on him for using language that implied the universe had edges but then you use the term “expanding” which implies the universe has a boundary as well. Pretty classic.

You must not understand the phrase "finite but UNBOUNDED". The universe IS expanding at a rate of 14 feet per second. It doesn't however have any boundaries, hence the term "boundless". If you'd have watched my youtube clip you might not have made a fool of yourself before you replied. Pretty classic.

What??? No laws of logic? The very act of stating there are no laws of logic assumes that there are laws of logic since it relies on the law of non-contradiction and the law of identity. So we know there are laws of logic, so now you can answer my question, how do you explain their existence in a purely atheistic universe?

What drivel is this? You're referring to Aristotle's laws of thought. The law of non-contradiction states that A cannot equal B. Law of identity states that A=A, and B=B. Me stating there aren't any "laws of logic" isn't contradictory. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

You must not understand the phrase "finite but UNBOUNDED". The universe IS expanding at a rate of 14 feet per second. It doesn't however have any boundaries, hence the term "boundless". If you'd have watched my youtube clip you might not have made a fool of yourself before you replied. Pretty classic.

The term “finite but unbounded” is a logical contradiction, so it’s impossible to understand it. It’s like criticizing someone for not understanding the term “The circle had four corners”, it actually makes you look like the fool. If the Universe is expanding, then which part of it is expanding and where is it expanding to and what is it expanding towards?

What drivel is this? You're referring to Aristotle's laws of thought. The law of non-contradiction states that A cannot equal B. Law of identity states that A=A, and B=B. Me stating there aren't any "laws of logic" isn't contradictory. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

Now tell me how old you think the Earth is already.

*sigh* The law of non-contradiction is not A cannot equal B, but rather A cannot equal “A” and “not A” at the same point in time and in the same relationship. You stating “laws of logic do not exist” banks off of this law of logic because it assumes something either exists or it doesn’t exist. So do you believe contradictions do in fact exist? Do you believe that at times A is not A and B is not B?

The term “finite but unbounded” is a logical contradiction, so it’s impossible to understand it. It’s like criticizing someone for not understanding the term “The circle had four corners”, it actually makes you look like the fool. If the Universe is expanding, then which part of it is expanding and where is it expanding to and what is it expanding towards?

I'm not criticizing you for not understanding it, but next time you want to try to make a smart comment, make sure you have your facts straight first.

It might seem paradoxical to someone who's not familiar with the 4th dimension. Go watch the video I posted and let Carl Sagan teach you a thing or two.